Comments for regulation2point0

Comment on Auction Magic by Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:16:00 +0000

In case you’re interested that last comment is spam – as you can see from the author’s url

Comment on Socialism, American-Style by Carlos Ferreira

Carlos Ferreira — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:12:04 +0000

Sounds like a bad deal for consumers and car manufacturers all round. Thinking about the recent debacle of Chrysler and GM, one has to wonder how much did this contribute to push them off the cliff – although in all fairness, Honda or Toyota face exactly the same set of regulations and were able to adapt.

Comment on Auction Magic by Used Construction Graders

Used Construction Graders — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:20:48 +0000

Auction #449233 – 130G CAT GRADER…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog …

Comment on Potopia? by Robert Hahn, Peter Passell

Robert Hahn, Peter Passell — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:01:00 +0000

Hi Ed,

The link to the paper can be accessed from RAND’s website: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP315.pdf. If you have trouble with the link to the PDF, you could also try this one: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP315/

Thanks for writing!

Comment on Potopia? by Ed Powell

Ed Powell — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:11:55 +0000

When I attempted to download your paper, the pdf file seemed to be corrupted. Is there another way to obtain a copy?

Comment on Research & Publications by Dennis Weisman « regulation2point0

Dennis Weisman « regulation2point0 — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:23:44 +0000

[...] a new paper available here, Dennis Weisman, an economist at Kansas State, offers eight very concrete principles to guide the [...]

Comment on Mobile Phone Madness by July 28 roundup

July 28 roundup — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:09:27 +0000

[...] iPhone class action of doubtful benefit to consumers [Hahn & Passell, Regulation 2.0] [...]

Comment on You Say Tomato by Peter Schuck

Peter Schuck — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:34:40 +0000

Chuck: Can you send me the complete article. The website chops it up. The failure of Congress to take on the FMs is the greatest outrage in this entire business. Warm regards, Peter

Comment on Bless Sheila Bair by Tim Iglesias

Tim Iglesias — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:24:36 +0000

Professor Stephanie Stern at Kent School of Law recently presented a paper at a national law conference on this issue in which she reviewed the available empirical literature. You are absolutely correct. The empirical evidence for the expected public benefits is not strong, though the picture is a bit complex. I’m not sure if she is planning to publish the paper, but it adds to the evidence-based skepticism about our huge subsidies for homeownership.

Comment on Bless Sheila Bair by Tim Brennan

Tim Brennan — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:52:39 +0000

It’s important to add that the tax break for housing ownership isn’t the mortgage interest deduction, since apartment owners can deduct that as well. The difference in tax treatment is that homeowners don’t pay any taxable rent, while apartment dwellers do. Homeowners get this tax break even if they’ve paid off the mortgage or never had one, so the tax benefit could be much larger and potentially more regressive than the posting suggests. The theoretically optimal if politically and practically difficult remedy would be to calculate and pay tax on imputed rent less the expenses landlords can typically deduct.

Advocates of promoting home ownership claim external benefits from the presumably greater incentives owners have to keep up the property and support community public goods. Is there much empirically to that? My intuition is that those putative benefits are either not large or attainable other ways, but anecdotally, local neighborhood civic associations, largely if not exclusively comprising homeowners, seem to favor restrictions on renters.